Talk:lusûs naturæ

RFV discussion: February–December 2020
A horrid creation of the author of many such, with one cite that I can't confirm. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I found and added one other citation (which I was able to see has this on the page; I was not able to confirm that Dickens does). But the inclusion of so much etymological information seems excessive/unusual for an inflected form, especially when the singular entry already covers the plural's etymology. And the singular lemma should itself be moved from lusus naturæ to lusus naturae ([//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=lusus+natur%C3%A6%2Clusus+naturae&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Clusus%20natur%C3%A6%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Clusus%20naturae%3B%2Cc0 Ngrams]). - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved the lemma (of the singular) to the ligatureless form, at least. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely this is an alternative, archaic spelling of (the plural), rather than a plural of . died in 1891, so her quotation of 2018 must have been channelled through occult forces.  --Lambiam 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. (Please revise the presentation as to "form of" as you see fit.) And older editions of her work don't have the û, though that doesn't prevent this edition from being used as a citation of a work that does have û (it exists in the world as a work someone might "run across", in the words of CFI). - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Another point: I doubt that the specific form “lusûs naturae”, which is given as an alternative plural at lusus naturae, was ever used in actuality. --Lambiam 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you find this entry in its challenged form objectionable, you might wish to review other contributions by the same person, distinguished by extreme pedantry. DCDuring (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I made [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User:-sche/sandbox&oldid=58750109 a list of English entries using âêîôûāēīōūæœ] (characters I've seen used in archaic Latinate entry titles) which aren't marked as archaic or obsolete. Many are valid, e.g. placenames, some are things that need to be marked as archaic (with content moved to another spelling), but many are other plurals, like Aramæans. Probably we should come up with a general policy on whether to present these as plurals of the ligature-using singulars or as archaic forms of the non-ligature plurals (or singulars). - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * other entries in this vein: conatûs, nexûs, nexūs, ictūs, lapsūs linguae, statūs (with an anti-pronunciation section). - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)